User talk:Simmaren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Talent for War

All seems very good - I has raised its class to "B" - all I can add is some more by way of critical reviews and literary significance would be good. Also are there more rewards and nominations that came its way.! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Userboxes

The top one here looks good, the bottom 3 show four vertical bars |||| : lots of folks don't have the Eastern languages systems installed. --Lexein 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for pointing that out - I hadn't thought about the problem of showing Eastern languages. I'll change all of the ID boxes to show the feather as in # 1. Simmaren 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I thought images of the chars would be cool, and platform-independant. --Lexein 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree that they're cool. What I may do when I have time is produce another set with the Japanese characters, then note for people why they may want to use one set or another. Simmaren 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Austen

Thank you for the note, Simmaren. I am glad to see that someone is working on Jane Austen! Next time, though, consider posting on my main talk page. I haven't worked on my own Jane Austen draft in months and I almost missed your post among all the other recently-updated pages on my watchlist — it appears that the orange "You have new messages" alert only works when posts are made to your main talk page. I appreciate the invitation to review and comment on your Jane Austen revision and will do so a bit later. -Severa (!!!) 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Austen

I am so happy that someone is dedicated to improving the Austen page (it is a travesty at the moment). I wonder if you would be interested in working together on your draft. I am a graduate student specializing in eighteenth-century British literature, so I would be more than happy to help out with the sections you have not yet completed. I can also offer a long list of helpful scholarly sources. See Mary Wollstonecraft, Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Sarah Trimmer for examples of authorial biographies that I have written. Awadewit | talk 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki editing tool

I wondered if you were using a wiki editing tool like wikEd. It makes reading wiki-code much easier because everything is color-coded. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wrongs of Woman

If you have any time in the next few weeks, would you mind peer-reviewing the article I wrote on Wollstonecraft's Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman? I'm afraid that it hasn't elicited much interest at the peer-review pages. I have struggled with the organization of the article, so I'm wondering how to reads to someone who hasn't been immersed in Wollstonecraft scholarship for the past year. :) Awadewit | talk 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry I haven't been very productive over the last few days - I have been immersed in the William Shakespeare FAC and the disasters arising at the FAC for an article I submitted. I hope to be back to full strength in a day or two, although the FAC may make me swear off FACs forever. Apparently my writing is atrocious. I warn you now. :) Awadewit | talk 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austen novels

Do you want to read the Austen novels together? We could have little chats about them over virtual tea. Awadewit | talk 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Almost done...

I'm sorry I haven't added any notes recently. I am almost done with my Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic. I have two articles at FAC right now and one more to polish up and then I will be done! (I'm not even going to think about bringing all the possible Wollstonecraft-related articles up to FA at the moment.) Once that process has been completed, I will be back full-tilt, full-steam, etc. Awadewit | talk 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh. My. God. (By the way, we should decide AE or BE for JA - I can promise this will happen for her, too.) Awadewit | talk 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southam

Did you read any of Southam? There are three volumes and I was just wondering if you had read any of it already. :) Awadewit | talk 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How tiresome

The AE/BE debate has now spilled over into a discussion of our potential article. See here and here. It all began here, if you want to see the huge, initial debate. I thought you might want to comment. You at least deserve to be made aware of this mess. Sorry I dragged JA into it. Awadewit | talk 18:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm confident Jane Austen can take care of herself.
  • I hope you will do likewise.
  • The idea to "hire" a translator was mine, offered in anticipation of this awful day. :) Know anyone good?
  • I'll think about whether I want to put my oar into this discussion. You've said the right things (as usual) so I'm not sure I can add anything new. Let me know, though, if more battalions are needed on the side of the angels.
  • I quibble with your description of our article as "potential." It seems real enough to me. Perhaps "incipient" or "emerging" or "eagerly anticipated" are better adjectives. :) Simmaren 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I thought you might want to add was that we had indeed considered the AE/BE issue and were going to bring in a BE expert. I may inadvertently have said I suggested the translation somewhere in the long debate - I just didn't remember. Sorry about that - you could correct that. One should always give credit where credit is due. There is no reason for you to get down into the mud on this one - it is just that little bit that I thought might need notarization. :) (Sorry about "potential" - my brain is fuzzy right now.) Awadewit | talk 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A Talent For War1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:A Talent For War1.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A Talent For War2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:A Talent For War2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I hope all is well. I am desperately trying to finish my notes so that I can start drafting in earnest. How are things going for you? Awadewit | talk 06:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Jane Austen

The timeline has been live for two days now and nothing of note has happened, either positively or negatively. Interesting in its own way. I started looking through the talk page of Jane Austen. You might want to do that as well. I'm not sure that we're going to have as much help from regular reviewers as we thought. :) Perhaps we'll gain some along the way. I hope you had a relaxing holiday. Awadewit | talk 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you may. Glad I could help Awadewit and a fellow typophile :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contest

I'm going to see if we can enter Wikipedia:The Core Contest - Austen is on the list! We could win $100! Even my half would come in handy around the holidays. :) Awadewit | talk 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • What do you think about posting the first half of the Austen article? I'm curious to see if anyone responds on the Austen page, frankly. We are also at that point where we are just refining. That may be best done live. Once we move the text, we lose the history. Any debates about what to include or not should probably start taking place on the Austen page, if you know what I mean. Awadewit | talk 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please do. I assume you will call in Mr. Davies to perform his Anglicising magic?
  • Will do, on both counts. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Which part is the first half? The biography? Your call, but I am inclined to put in the whole thing. We announced what we're doing a long time ago and people have had the chance to watch us (and to contribute).
  • What I meant was everything written out - not the sketchy outline part. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as well. The (non-)response to adding the timeline is encouraging, although it's hard to see what anyone could object to and it's not very visible (something to address). I'm more encouraged by the lack of response to your move of the media section. I thought that might be a flash point.
  • I am encouraged as well. :) Awadewit | talk 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The history remains with the sandbox draft where any antiquarian can look at it who is interested. :)
  • In another place, you mentioned cutting back the reception piece. I like its scope as it is - it's a large topic and deserves a few paragraphs.
  • We'll see what happens when we start writing the "Style" section - I feel that section should feel prominently. I'll try to start drafting that in the next few days, if you think the outline is good. Awadewit | talk 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Work has not tapered off much, but I will have some time this weekend to put in.
  • Good work, and thanks. (Cheers in background) Simmaren (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

Watch what can happen at FAC: Wikipedia: Featured article candidates/Analytical Review. :) Awadewit | talk 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it. I'm glad you can still smile. Simmaren (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopédie

So, are you thinking Encyclopédie in 2009? :) I've longed to work on that article because I think Wikipedia should have a good article on the first real encyclopedia. Maybe we could get Willow to help - she did Britannica. Awadewit | talk 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes. Timing open. You're right about it being disgraceful. I'd love to work with you both on it. I also "to do'd" yesterday's Main Page FA on John Day (printer). It's good but the references are thin. The new book by Raven isn't listed as a reference and it has lots of stuff on him. A task for another day.Simmaren (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My "another days" seem to stretch into infinity. I'll check with Willow and sees if she is interested in working on it when we're done with JA. I really can't start another big project right now. :) Awadewit | talk 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Willow is on board for 2009. :) Awadewit | talk 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JA timeline

What do you think about getting a peer review of the Timeline of Jane Austen and taking it through WP:FLC? Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft is a featured list, so I'm sure JA can be as well. I don't think either of us is planning on buying the 1,000 page Le Faye chronology and making a day-by-day chronology of JA's life, which I don't think would be that useful anyway - for the average reader. Awadewit | talk 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's go for it. It's very good, and appears to me to meet the FLC. Almost entirely your work, so I get to say so. ;-) Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does Tony1 hang about WP:FAC? Does he have cousins who do? What was your experience with the MW timeline? Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this chronology is at about the right level of detail. I envision the target readership as high school, college and first year graduate students in literature, literary history or just plain history who need context for further research. As a starting place for them, it's a treasure house. Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Le Faye is for scholars, although it might not be a bad idea to include a reference to it to point the way for those who need more detail. Do you have (access to) the necessary biblio info? Are there other similar resources known to you that could be added? Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead needs more work, I think, but I'm unclear in my own mind how much. It seems a little too long and too much like the lead to the JA Article, which has a different purpose. I'm going to fiddle with it a bit - I'm concerned about messing up the footnotes but we can revert it and start again if necessary. Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked the images. Are you confident that they all have acceptable copyright status? Simmaren (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add a cross-reference "for further information and references" at the top to the JA article. Simmaren (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good points all - I will start dealing with them (do you mind if I copy this list to the talk page of the article?). What do you think about a peer review? I have found that a peer review is necessary to an easy FLC/FAC. My experience with the MW timeline was rocky, but they had never had such a timeline of this nature before at FLC. I'm hoping that if we go through PR first and note that this is based on the already featured MW timeline, things should be easier. My only concern is that the JA material is too detailed. Compared to the MW timeline, there is much more information. I wonder whether people are going to say "do we care that she traveled so much?" I think it is necessary to understanding her precarious economic status, etc. Another reason for a PR and a slight revision of the lead. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would I mind? Makes sense to me to preserve the discussion where it's relevant.
  • I made some changes in the lead that should help, mainly to conform it to what's been done in the lead to the main article.
  • Yes to peer review. I agree that it should be helpful.
  • I don't intend an invidious comparison between JA and MW, but given the importance WP itself attaches to JA, the detail shouldn't be objectionable. I agree with your point about the detail being necessary to understanding JA's life/work. We can also point out in an "incrementalist" way (if I understand the term correctly) that this type of time line is the "coming thing" at WP. We can always point to Le Faye's chronology to show the lengths to which we could have gone. Moreover, the organization and graphic sophistication of the presentation should make it manageable for its intended audience. Simmaren (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I will put it up for peer review and then solicit some feedback in the next few days. Awadewit | talk 18:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 19th-century novels task force

Hi, Simmaren. I'm starting up a 19th-century novels task force for WP:NOVELS. This would cover the works of many well-known authors, including Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo and Leo Tolstoy. If you think you'd be interested in supporting or participating in the task force, please let me know. Cheers. – Liveste [talk • contrib] 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jane's tree

Drafts:

I've let Awadewit know too. Feedback either on my talk page or on the image talk page would work. Let me know what you'd like changed, and if there are errors. Mike Christie (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Whatever you guys decide to do is fine with me. Awadewit | talk 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hobbit - copyediting

Hi Simmaren, I've requested the League of Copyeditors take a look at The Hobbit. Your feedback on the article (re citations for adaptations etc.) a while back was invaluable, and would welcome your input on further improving it. --Davémon (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WP:LOTD

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day and List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200805 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in June at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200806.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick O'Who?

Hi - just passing ... I see that on your user page you refer to the writer "Patrick O'Brien". Are you sure you don't mean Patrick O'Brian? I was going to correct it for you, and then I thought that would be a bit impertinent. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for calling this to my attention. I've corrected the error. I appreciate your courtesy and don't think I would have minded your correction if accompanied by a note here. At least, on a good day. ;) Simmaren (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome back!

I hope all is well! Let me know how you want to progress with Austen. Qp and I are finishing up Mary Shelley, so it will be a bit before I can start working again, but I am anxious to! Awadewit (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)